Faith in Science: Examining Our Beliefs - PF 2.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the role of faith in science, with participants debating whether faith has a place in scientific inquiry. Many argue that science should rely solely on evidence and rational deduction, asserting that faith, defined as belief without reason, is incompatible with scientific methodology. Some acknowledge a minimal level of faith in the consistency of natural laws, while emphasizing that scientific conclusions are based on tested hypotheses rather than blind belief. The conversation also touches on the public's shifting confidence in science, noting a decline in the unwavering faith once placed in scientific solutions for societal problems. Ultimately, the consensus is that while some confidence in scientific principles exists, it is fundamentally different from faith as understood in religious contexts.
  • #31
In my opinion, faith in science is based on the postulates collected from experiments(although such experiments don't neccesarily have to be done in the physical world: i.e, metaphysics).


Originally posted by Mentat
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1).


I agree with that scripture. But when you relate it to "faith in science", I don't believe "though not beheld" applies to all aspects of science, but metaphysical aspects of it. Or have I interpreted it wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
no, I don't have any 'faith' in science. There's no point to it. After all, science in man's creation and science will die along with mankind.
 
  • #33
true, psyber freek. but, the context of "faith in science" refers to now, while humans still exist.
 
  • #34
i think humanity continues to have "faith in science" (not the same perspective as i intentionally meant) because it is the only "truth" we can "rely" on for now...
 
  • #35
Edit: Humanity relies on the results of science.
The definition of science is...
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

~from www.dictionary.com

So, does humanity rely on "the observation indentification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena"? I think not, but the results of it. But then, in the end, these results are functions of science.
 
  • #36
Obviously, we need rely on science to benefit ourselves, but we can't believe completely in science because that's not the sole reality. For example, consciousness exists but it can't be scientifically observed.
 
  • #37
excellent point psyber freak...we know it's there, but can't physically sense it with our known 5 senses...
 
  • #38
Currently, we can't "observe" it. There's been a fairly new discovery of biophotons. They're supposed to unite QM with consciousness, so to speak. Anyhow, biophotons could be the possible key to our understanding of consciousness, which could very well be a series of EM/electric currents. This will all be resolved through further study of biophotons.
 
  • #39
Alright, I'm glad that some of you are remembering the difference between faith in the potential of scientific discovery, and faith in the current level scientific knowledge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K